Another advantage of chains is they are narrower, allowing the engine to be a little shorter. But I like them mainly because they are reliable and long-lasting.

I agree. I would prefer having a chain in the engine of my car as I have in the engine of one of my motorbikes. At least they don't "fail" basically destroying the engine, as belts can do. Even if the cost is a bit higher and the noise is a bit higher, I would still prefer chains. A distribution belt is the single worst point of failure of an engine and probably the bigger engine killer on the planet.

But I prefer film, and the market prefers digital. People has wrong priorities it seems.

I don't see why. Still need a cover over the front of the engine, and a shaft seal. And if there is any leak, and it reaches the belt, that's it. Belt fails. And it might not be enough to show outside the cover.

Come to think of it, another reason I dislike belts.

I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

But I prefer film, and the market prefers digital. People has wrong priorities it seems.

Chains are film, belts are digital.
Back on topic, sort of.

Maybe belt-based distributions are easier to put "in phase".

I don't know. Three people I know had a shop put them together out of phase, off by a tooth or two. No damaged engines, fortunately. Though the belt can't really be blamed for that. Just that oil change places and tune-up shops think that it's so much easier to change a belt, that even they are competent to do it.

I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

Having had experience with both timing belts and timing chains, a few observations: chain failure, especially double row chains, is usually gradual and signaled by the clatter of disintegrating links. My guess that single row chains would furnish only seconds of warning. A double row chain is akin to two bicycle chains side by side with three rather than four rows of link plates. A single row chain is just like a bicycle chain.

Belt failure is usually silent and sudden. I doubt that oil on a belt would cause more rapid failure; synthetic rubbers are pretty robust. Whether or not failure of either belt or chain "destroys" the engine is independent of the method of cam drive, but rather the design of the engine, i.e., whether the rising piston would contact a valve left open by the cam drive failure. That is to say, is it an "interference" engine, or not. As examples, my friend had a Fiat 1600 DOHC belt driven engine on which the timing belt broke while he was starting the engine. The result: 4 of the 8 valves bent. My Datsun 510 1600 SOHC engine suffered the cam drive cog falling off the cam shaft while the engine was running. No damage. The former had an interference engine, the latter, not.

AFAIK many modern engines are "interference" since that offers better power and economy. Whether they have cam belt or chain drives follow the manufacturers' recommendations for replacement/maintenance.

Re LXDude's post, after the problem with my Datsun, the car had no power after my mechanic massaged it. I determined that the VALVE TIMING was off by a tooth or two and fixed it. Back to proper engine response. Valve timing rarely has to be adjusted unless the belt/chain has to be replaced, or the chain stretches a bit. Engines commonly have a provision for compensating for this stretch, which usually occurs only in high mileage examples.

BTW, ignition timing was/is set in distributor engines by rotating the distributor a few degrees while observing with a strobe light a mark on the crank pulley. Setting the points gap makes a VERY small difference in ignition timing; that adustment is referred to as setting the dwell.

What this digression has to do with film I don't know, but its been fun!

Having had experience with both timing belts and timing chains, a few observations: chain failure, especially double row chains, is usually gradual and signaled by the clatter of disintegrating links. My guess that single row chains would furnish only seconds of warning.

Depends. Usually chains fail from being worn out. The adjuster reaches the end of its travel and the chain starts to whip, making noise. The whip accelerates the wear, noise increases, etc. The only time I saw a silent chain failure, it was actually a plastic-center-with-metal-tooth-ring cam sprocket on a big old Buick V6 (the derived-from-a-V8 one). High mileage, the plastic got brittle, sprocket collapsed.

I doubt that oil on a belt would cause more rapid failure; synthetic rubbers are pretty robust.

Oh, it does. It weakens the rubber and the highest stress point at the tooth root shears. Very few belts break; they shear some teeth. If the belt breaks it's usually from the abrupt stop when the valves and pistons crash, or from riding off the sprocket after the teeth shear and tangling.

I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

To quote an article by Terry Kuny entitled A Digital Dark Ages?: Challenges in the Preservation of Electronic Information:

Digital collections facilitate access, but do not facilitate preservation. Being digital means being ephemeral. Digital places greater emphasis on the here-and-now rather than the long-term, just-in-time information rather than just-in-case.

And that's from someone in the digital field.

We'll see whose pictures are still here in 100 years (barring fires and natural disasters that could destroy the houses of those who keep negatives and slides, and movie reels).

It seems that in this era of the digital rush that people are just eager to forget the past or think that digital technology is mature and infallible and to save a dime here and there (though there's nothing wrong with that, I like to spend money where it counts).

I only hope that someone by then will have had the good graces to preserve what remains of analog means of recording. I hope to one day get an analog photography project started, documenting the basics of the mechanics of famous brands of film cameras and what makes them tick, etc. and all that. I still have that in mind. All I need to do is get better at managing my time.

In the meantime, I will go only into a fully digital means of color photography kicking and screaming if E6 (and later, C41, but I really would be hesitant to adapt it, due to the greater instability of the color) goes extinct, grudgingly shooting digital (with a lot of B&W film).

I used to be a 100% digital zombie, but then I came to realize how important film is in preserving the past, while staying in the present.

Typical digital zombies say: "Adapt or die!" "The world is changing, change with it!" "Analog is old and nasty! EEEEEEEWWWWWW!" "Why should I pay money for getting my pictures when I can have everything NOW?" "Why shoot manual when you can have the camera do everything automatically?"

Great link! A friend of mine once owned a Lotus Elite. Lovely little coupe! When he went to buy parts for it he had to specify not only the make, year and model, but also the VIN. Seems that Lotus bought parts where they could, thus some cars would have Lucas, The Prince of Darkness, electrics and others would have...whatever was on sale that week. I once asked him whether the engine was sourced from Briggs or from Tecumseh; he was not amused.

One Reason Why Film Rules

Hahahahaha!!!
If you want to annoy a Lotus fan you tell them it's an acronym....Lots Of Trouble Usually Serious....
Having said that I'd love to own an original Elite with the Coventry Climax motor....or even an early Elan.

I too went fully digital but then realised that if I wanted something important to stay I should go back to film.
So snapshots and web pics and the like are on a point and shoot (albeit a rather nice one in the shape of an X10...) and the real shots I want forever are on a solid medium.
Just as an exposed frame undeveloped is only a latent image, it does not exist in reality but only in potential, so is a digital image. And just like an undeveloped film it shares the inherent instability of a latent image.
So I shoot my good stuff on film then I scan it so I can email/cheap prints for family/etc.
But I've always got my originals...